Re: Lack of Transparency cause for concern
Posted by Deborah on 8/12/10
Wow, great way to give that group more attention.
This article reminded me of it, perhaps remaining member will be asked to sign a confidentiality
On 8/12/10, Sharon wrote:
> Like I said you assume facts not in evidence in your hypotheses which causes your conclusions
> to be incorrect based on the false assumptions.
> 1. My house was under 2000 sf. It was a beautiful little gem. But small. Got more than
> enough had I been inclined to remodel from top to bottom.
> Not even going to bother with the rest. Why are you always so interested in my personal
> life? Are you sure I didn't turn you down for a date or something at your favorite
> university in the whole world - Ole Miss?
> On 8/12/10, johncodie wrote:
>> On 8/12/10, Sharon wrote:
>>> 1. I received close to a half a million dollar settlement in my private litigation of 8
>>> years ago. More than enough to get my old house fixed if I was so inclined to do so.
>> A half a millon doesn't come close to replacing a house that size, not even close to the
>> amount orginaly awarded to your freind Ms Ballard. You left the house and moved into town
>> closer to your husbands business and have ravine and walking path in place of a lake view.
>> No pool where you had a pool, and no place to park that big RV,or dock the boat. I know
>> those prices you tried to get in Rancho Sante Fe, those were in the millons. You settled
>> for what you could get so have the attorneys paid.
>>> 2. People made contributions to my legal defense fund Because I was the first to
>>> publicly write of the deception of the US Chamber of Commerce's marketing campaign for
>>> the courts in the writing in question. It is kind of important to shut this down. Five
>>> years later, the case is still in the courts and will continue in the courts until this
>>> stopped as it is harming MANY.
>> People made request for your legal defense fund because your actions resulted in a
>> judgement your still trying to get out of, which benefited Thrasher, and Shoemaker; who
>> depended on you to get the winds blowing in their direction as being a solution to mold
>> related problems. It's not the Chambers paper or the opposing view paper that is harming
>> anybody. You got yourself into a political tail spin and can't get out with your dignity
>> intact. There are no mold people being found with toxins. None.
>>> 3. There is no monitary judgement being paid on my behalf. Quit making stuff up, John!
>> There is a judgement and it is costing you dearly. You might not have had to cut back on
>> the number of packs of cigarrettes you smoke but it is a drain. Can you go another 5
>>> 4. I'm sorry. I don't know Sandra Tyson but do know thousands of others pleading for
>>> help. Shutting down the deceit of the Chamber will help stop this.
>> You should know Sandra Tyson, you should Frank, you should know Mary; they were the grass
>> roots supporting your cause. The Chamber is a personal issue of which you picked the
>> battle. It had no bearing on Sandra Tyson.
>>> 5. I left ACHEMMIC. I can't speak for what they do or do not do.
>> Why do good people put their name on a petetion, or join a political group when they don't
>> know what they do or not do. At your national level of recognition don't you think you
>> should be sure of an association before put your name with theirs.
>>> 6. You still sound bitter that all did not go well for you 10 years ago and if things did
>>> not go well for you, then they should not go well for anyone else. Wrong attitude for
>>> one to live their life by.
>> Things did go exceptionaly well for us, we avoided having our nest egg washed away with
>> Katrinia, We were able to place the children in private school, and an ivy league collage.
>> We are thus far avoiding the massive layoffs not seen for 36 years. I can play golf or
>> tennis with the children, where once I was looking for fuel to heat the home. Your
>> settlement was two years prior to our settlement; so no the M. Ballard mold is gold rush
>> wasn't used as it had no bearing. Two honest men set the sights for the litigation of
>> breach of contract, not mold. It was really never an issue. The Chamber of Commerce Paper
>> has no influence when the court takes all evidence at face value. Find the people that are
>> covered in mold and that is your beginning. The mold era is over, even if your case hasn't
>> been dismissed.
>>> On 8/12/10, johncodie wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/10, Sharon wrote:
>>>>> No. I don't know anyone named Sandra Tyson. And I do not generate income from this
>>>>> issue - as you WELL KNOW - while promoting or not promoting ACHEMMIC's or anyone
>>>>> else's agenda. No. I am not concerned about being a "noteworthy cyber space figure
>>>>> of respect". If I was, I certainly wouldn't be participating in this nonsense on a
>>>>> public forum with you!
>>>>> This is what I want and what I have ALWAYS wanted: I was the deception of the US
>>>>> Chamber of Commerce et al, over this issue that it has been scientifically proven
>>>>> claims of mold induced illness are only being made because of "trial lawyers, media
>>>>> and Junk Science" G-O-N-E from public health policy. That's it. That is all I want
>>>>> and I will not be stopping until I get it. Can't. Too many lives at stake.
>>>> Your legal defense does recieve money, as is any monitary judgements being paid on
>>>> your behalf. So if your on the street pandering for a dollar, or you permit some to
>>>> pander for that dollar on your behalf it is considered income. Your accountants can
>>>> argue the arms lenght it did not go into my bank account, even though the soliciations
>>>> use your name, and the purpose. You should know Sandra Tyson as she was one of the
>>>> individuals pleading for help from these chat room relief groups. Maybe she could
>>>> have benefited from one of those solicited dollars. She, and Frank, and Mary and
>>>> others were trying to find the first 10 years benefits of the mold is gold melodrama.
>>>> Prior to the Chamber of Commerce you wanted your house on the Lake fixed, placed in
>>>> the same shape as it was before. You wanted to have public record of your daugher's
>>>> health issues attributed from the generated mold. You wanted compensation for your
>>>> and their pain and suffering. The Chamber of Commerce was only a party to the mold is
>>>> gold melodrama when inspectors started cooking the mold. Ask any knowlegable
>>>> inspectors. The Chamber used influence to reduce their members liability, mold has
>>>> been added as an additional coverage, or removed from policies for years. ACHEMMIC
>>>> and other groups are just trying to get numbers of minimum exposure so it justifies
>>>> their business profit for having the government on their side. Even on hazadous waste
>>>> site's for know PEL's the government is broke. You won't stop junk sceince until your
>>>> groups start publishing it; you can't get the government onboard, and can't get your
>>>> people in government positions. With the census, and statistics were a nation of
>>>> numbers. There are no lives at stake! There are no numbers of deaths attributed to
>>>> mold! There was a person "Sandra Tyson" who thought she would be the "one" to bear
>>>> the proof; but you and your groups dismissed her. She and Frank, Mary have provided
>>>> enough information to be given the opportunity to be counted as one of those
>>>> statistics but they got ignored, or mistreated with the mold cure prescribed by some
>>>> of these experts that are spreading their brand of junk science.
Posts on this thread, including this one